If Life Starts At Conception…

For Sale: Purity Ring, Slightly Used
Romance at Mars Hill
So Long, And Thanks For All The Memories (From Dan)
Atheist Dog Tricks
  • Reginald Selkirk

    Life started > 3 billion years ago.

  • John C

    Our Life started when He ‘thought’ us, when we came into the mind of God. That’s when we (really) came into being, is our most Substantive existence even still.

    What is man that You take (& took) thought of him? (Ps 8:4)

    • John C

      Ps 139

      17How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
      How vast is the sum of them!

      18If I should count them, they would outnumber the sand.
      When I AWAKE, I am still with You.

      • John C

        Henri Bergson On Intuition vs Intellect, 1907:

        ‘Fortunately, some are born with spiritual immune systems that sooner or later reject the illusory worldview grafted upon them from birth through social conditioning. They begin sensing that something is amiss, and start looking for answers. Inner knowledge and anomalous outer experiences show them a side of reality others are oblivious to, and so begins their journey of AWAKENING. Each step of the journey is made by following the heart instead of following the crowd and by choosing (intuitive heart-) knowledge over the veils of ignorance’.

        (*Note: I agree with the quote’s intended message but I don’t care for that last word he used ‘ignorance’ with respect to my UF friends, so I reject that but in the interest of literary honesty and accurate-quoting, I felt obligated to leave it in there, just so ya know).

        • Johan

          Enough with the proselytizing.

    • Hitchslapper

      OK now… go back to your room and play with yourself some more………….

    • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

      Citation needed.

  • Dee Brown

    This isn’t as funny as you might imagine. In some parts of the world, a baby is 1 when he or she is born and turns 2 on New Year’s Day.

    • Mogg

      It’s funny (well, actually not that funny, but anyway…) in a Western, English-speaking context. It doesn’t have to be funny in another cultural context – few jokes are.

  • mark

    I guess you could count from conception. There is something that is formed that is uniquely *you* at that point.

    I think I’ll stick with the Western convention of counting age as number of years from birth.

  • Brian K

    So…does that mean all the children and fetuses slaughtered in the Old Testament were murder victims? The Babble sure doesn’t seem to think so. The Babble LOVES abortion.

    Which rem,inds me…why, if it is a BAYBEE being killed, is abortion in the case of rape or incest legal? is it the baybee’s fault? Be consistent, Pro Lifers.

    • Jules

      Pro-lifers who accept abortion in cases of rape & incest are giving in to emotion. A life is a life no matter how it was conceived. It may sound callous to the victimized woman to say so but there it is. I don’t agree with your misunderstanding of the Bible but you’re right on your second point & hopefully, people will follow the logic.

      • Sunny Day

        When you put the rights of imaginary people over those of persons who are known to exist it will always sound Callous.

        • Norm

          So when is a baby an imaginary person???

          • Yoav

            When it’s an undefined blob of cells with no brain or nervous system.

          • Sunny Day

            A better question is when is a baby a baby?

            • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

              That’s a tricky one, since drawing a strict line in the sand tends to leave us with unsavoury implications. If we say it’s when it is no longer dependent on the mother to survive, we essentially allow for infanticide, and if we say it is when it feels pain or is fully formed or at some other arbitrary milestone in gestation, we have difficulty justifying later terminations and the mother’s autonomy is diminished. If we say the moment it is born, then we have to explain why, since there is essentially no difference between a term foetus one second before labour begins and a baby sliding out of the birth canal a few hours later. I worry that kind of line will lead to pseudophilosophical mumbo-jumbo about inherent qualitative differences between born and unborn that essentially amount to “it has a soul now”.

              Naturally, this question is better because it is far more difficult and complex to answer, so it does not suit the black and white “god says it so I’ll go with that” form of morality from anti-choice theists. They don’t like morality that isn’t prescribed for them, because then they’d have to use their own conscience and not consult a cheat-sheet.

            • Norm

              It really is irellivent whether its a baby,infant,child,adult,fetus,asian ,negro or Caucasian,they are still a person.You can consult what ever “cheat-sheet”you like to justify your solution to your moral dilemma,the only difference between a “clump of cells”and an elderly person is time.

            • Sunny Day

              Norm, by that moronic definition of what constitutes a person, Corpses are people too.

            • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

              Norm, that’s just stupid. I’m sorry to be rude, but you didn’t read what I said properly and you didn’t put an ounce of thought into that response. A clump of cells and an elderly person are enormously different things because of the things I already said and a host more. Asserting otherwise doesn’t actually contribute to the conversation and makes you look like you’re six. You’re the one I was accusing of looking up a cheat-sheet, namely your religious faith, and my point was that people like yourself do this largely because you don’t want to have to think about morality and would rather just be told what to do and not do. I think this has been demonstrated effectively by you not even understanding my response, let alone engage with it constructively.

            • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

              Also what Sunny Day said. It’s beyond asinine to argue that human cells are human beings. That makes exfoliation a form of mass murder.

      • Mogg

        So the fact that the Bible is, if anything, vaguely supportive of the idea that a foetus is not of worth of itself, and was not worth compensation for loss due to injury to the mother or could even be aborted with magic water from a priest under certain circumstances, has no relevance to a Bible-believing person, then?
        Just because something is living doesn’t automatically grant it any right to continue living, as the weeds in my garden will find out this weekend. Other factors must come into the decision, including the rights of those most affected.

        • Norm

          We should get rid of old people aswell then,they are such a drain on society .Why stop there the retarted,gypsys.We are talking about someONE living,not someTHING.

          • Custador

            No. We’re not. It’s not someONE from conception. It’s someTHING. Fucking deal with it.

            • Norm


            • Custador

              My, what a mature, well thought-out, well researched answer you have provided. Pity your punctuation sucks, though.

            • Mogg

              If you are so bored, why not start an interesting conversation? Anything would have to be better than the tripe you’ve spouted so far. Even a sign that you have thought about any of these topics instead of reflexively repeating the lines of the evangelical church would be a nice change.

          • Mogg

            Old people, the intellectually handicapped, and those of other cultures all have things a foetus doesn’t – legal personhood and the physical capacity (with the exception of those who have no functional brain) to actually be a person.

            • Norm

              Well Mogg,ive never once heard any “lines”or speakers talk on abortion a single time in churchand for someone who went to church for 25 years you would know that.The boring tripe is coming from you guys who justify killing children with the weakest of arguments and flippant denials of fact,both scientific and ethical. I have no doubt a lot of people here are more intelligent,academic and even better spellers,that doesn’t make them nicer or better people,they only impress themselves.

            • Mogg

              I certainly did hear sermons on it, and I read a lot of books from Word Bookstore which overtly or covertly pushed that line, saw lots of posters, heard lots of songs, ad nausaeum. Having spent many years immersed in the culture of the evangelical church, I can definitely report to you that it’s there, and in fact you are being disingenuous to claim otherwise. I never doubted it until I did the research for myself, and discovered that a lot of what I had been told about abortion in Christian circles was, as you put it, flippant denial of fact both scientific and ethical. The arguments for abortion being legal are not at all weak, and are nothing if not rigourously ethically considered. A very few minutes searching with your internet search engine of choice will reveal to you the scientific consensus upon which those ethical and legal decisions are based is very strong.

              These decisions are not made lightly, solely because there are people who want to be mean to “babies”. Your opinion on this matter reflects complete ignorance of the real facts and processes, and given that your opinion can potentially shape outcomes for millions of women and their children in the future, it is the kind of ignorance that is not just offensive, but dangerous. I cannot but be happy for myself and my female relatives and friends that I live somewhere that people like you have not won the legal debate, at least for the moment.

          • Reginald Selkirk

            We should get rid of old people as well then…
            This is you, making a strawman fallacy. You should be ashamed of yourself.

      • Custador

        You’re male, aren’t you?

      • Nox

        “Pro-lifers who accept abortion in cases of rape & incest are giving in to emotion.”

        Pro-lifers…are giving in to emotion. Those who believe a zygote is a person, believe so not because of reason but because they have accepted an emotional appeal. Those who believe all abortion is murder, but support the option in cases of rape and incest are attempting to reconcile their emotional desire to control other people’s reproductive choices with their emotional desire to not look like callous a*sholes.

        “It may sound callous to the victimized woman to say so but there it is.”

        It is callous to the victimized woman to say that. It doesn’t just sound callous. It sounds like something which could only be said by a person with a severe deficiency of empathy for other living beings. Things like this, and the reliability with which pro-lifers endorse the death penalty, oppose social services, and fight tooth and nail against anything (contraception, sex education) which would actually reduce the number of abortions, do tend to discredit one’s pro-”life” credentials.

        “I don’t agree with your misunderstanding of the Bible.”

        We must have been reading different books. You mean the bible right? The christian holy book? The one with Exodus and Malachi and sh*t? The one where god commands and carries out unmitigated genocide?

        Isn’t that the book where Moses commands his followers (speaking for yhvh) to kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him (Numbers 31:17)? Isn’t that the same book where Samuel (speaking for yhvh) commands Saul to go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling (1st Samuel 15:3)? Isn’t this the same book where god murders David’s infant son as punishment for his father’s indiscretions (2nd Samuel 12:13-18)? Isn’t that the same book where Hosea revels in the punishment he says god will visit upon Samaria, gleefully prophesying that their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up (Hosea 13:6)? Isn’t that the same book where yhvh murders the firstborn children of every house of Egypt (Exodus 12:29-30)? Doesn’t god commision a flood to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life (Genesis 6:17)? Is this not the same book which commands that any woman suspected of adultery should be forced to drink a poison which is intended to kill the fetus (Numbers 5:16-28)? It seems like I read somewhere (Exodus 21:12) that a man who smites another man so that he die, is guilty of murder and is to be put to death, but a man who strikes a woman and causes her to miscarry is only subject to a fine (Exodus 21:22).

        We must have been reading different books.

        Of course the larger issue is that regardless of what your book says, you have no right to impose your religion upon others, and no right to determine the reproductive choices of others. But I always find it funny that so many people who oppose abortion, cite their reasons as ‘every child is precious in the eyes of god’ or some such bullsh*t (which is in no way compatible with the bible). I guess if they just came out and said women should be punished for not doing what the church tells them, it wouldn’t be as effective of an emotional appeal.

        • Brian K

          As usual, once Nox brings in the smackdown, there is no need for any further comment. Bravo, my man, bravo!

          I’ll save them the trouble of mewling the usual apologetics:
          “But all those victims of Jewish tribal violence were EVILLLLLL people who deserved to die.”


          “But JAY-ZUS made all this unnecessary. We have a New Covenant” Which includes punishment for ever and ever and ever for the VAST majority of humanity. Because HE loves us!

          Remind me again why Christians claim their religion is the source of morality?

          • Nox

            Thank you Brian.

        • John C

          So Nox, what do those passages (that you referenced) really mean? For example, why would God want to put to death ‘the women who have known a man’ and what does ‘death’ mean here? Or how about Amalek, who is he and what does he represent and why does God say He will be ‘at war with him throughout all generations’ (Ex 17:16)? What does all this really mean? Because if you don’t know you’ll inevitably come to the faulty, ‘literal’ conclusion (in the same way Fundies read scripture, ie literally) that God is genocidal when nothing could be further from the Truth, friend.

          It’s aggravating as hell, isn’t it? Reading but not understanding, hearing but not hearing? (Is 6:9)

          • John C

            Wherever man is not in agreement with God, he is opposed to himself.

            • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

              Citation still needed.

            • Sunny Day

              JohnMWhite, One way of looking at it:
              Gods are created by men.
              Only each person holds to their unique concept of god.
              If they are not in agreement with the god they created then obviously they are opposed to themselves.

            • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

              You’re right! Thanks, Sunny. Hey, well done, John C, something you said finally makes sense.

      • Brian K

        At least you are being consistent.

  • Norm

    At what age does killing anyone become legal ?Also how is anything a “baybee’s” fault? Adults are always responsible for our young children,our penis’s and vagina’s.

    • Custador

      People who can’t learn to use apostrophes properly should have been aborted, in my honest opinion.

      • Norm

        Wow the apostrophe police are on the ball today,in my opinion your anal.

        • Custador

          Similarly, people who don’t know the difference between you’re and your should be rounded up, along with the people who spell ridiculous as “rediculous”, herded into a pen with people who say then instead of than and to instead of too (and vice-versa), and the whole lot should be doused in strong acid until they die. I firmly believe this is true, because it’s what feels right to me and I believe it to be inner knowledge.

          • http://blog.luigiscorner.com/ Azel

            Dousing them in acid ? Heresy ! I believe true in my inner being that such people should be exposed to a strong oxidising agent. I recommend chlorine trifluoride.

        • Nox


          You’re still down by several thousand for all the ridiculous sh*t you have said in this and other threads. But if that typo was intentional, that is worth at least 3 points.

          • Custador

            That typo wasn’t intentional, Nox. I think we all know that.

            • Nox

              I do know that. And I don’t think norm is clever enough to be intentionally funny. Still the funniest possible place for that particular f*ckup.

              “People who can’t learn to use apostrophes properly”
              “In my opinion your anal”

              Sophomoric sure, but it works.

              Near perfect comedic timing is sometimes acheived when a master craftsman hones the delivery of a punchline down to the millisecond. Absolutely perfect comedic timing is acheived when an idiot walks off a ledge.

            • Custador

              Hah! True.

        • UrsaMinor

          Dear Norm,

          The rules for using the apostrophe in English are very simple.
          The fact that you can’t seem to master them indicates that you’re even simpler.

          If you want to be taken seriously, present yourself seriously. You may have the best arguments in the world on your side, but if you can’t or don’t communicate them to your audience, you’re just screwing yourself.

          • Norm

            Oh dear,when it comes down to you all being this anal its no wonder you find homosexuality so attractive.[pun intended]Especially with all the drivell written here.

            • Mogg

              You do realise that women have anuses as well, don’t you? Amazing as it may seem, anal sex neither defines or is exclusive to homosexuality.

            • Custador

              Can I banhammer this numpty yet?

            • Theory_of_I


              Oh yeah — Drop it, it’s the only humane thing to do with the ignorANUS

            • Nox

              I’m getting a little annoyed with the inane comments in every thread. And at this point the conversation could only be improved by not having him in it. But I don’t see that he’s done anything to justify banning.

              So I vote No Ban.

              (I’d still like Norm to go the f*ck away. I just don’t think it should be coerced).

            • UrsaMinor

              If you ban him, we’ll never find out if he has any reasoning to back up his arguments. I’ll admit that it’s been disappointing so far, as his “arguments” consist entirely of repeating nyuh-uh! in various permutations, but you know me. I’m a hopeless idealist, and I believe that some day he might actually deign to explain his position to us.

    • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

      There are lots of circumstances where killing someone becomes legal. Self-defence, war, execution, and even euthanasia in certain circumstances in certain countries. What you really want to know is why should it be legal to terminate pregnancies, and it’s for a multitude of reasons that I don’t think you are ever going to care about until you accept that your belief that a zygote or embryo is a person is merely an opinion and not a medical fact. If you believe that, that’s fine, don’t get an abortion, but don’t try to stop a woman who can’t feed her already existing children from exercising her right to act on her own belief about what’s best for her, her family, and whatever she thinks of the cells growing inside her own body.

  • Jer

    Premies ages are sometimes measured as if they haven’t yet been born.

  • Korou

    In China, and I believe some other countries, yes.
    I’m a westerner who lives in China. Whenever someone tries to depress me by saying “So, how does it feel to be thirty?” I just tell them I’ve already been thirty for a year.

  • vasaroti

    I keep asking people to think through the liability consequences of legal personhood for blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses, but most don’t seem to get it. There are thousands upon thousands of substances and activities that can potentially terminate a pregnancy. Any time a woman goes to the doctor or dentist, she has to indicate whether she might be pregnant. Now, imagine her having to sign waivers every time she buys anything, rides in any conveyance, etc. Guys, you’d probably have to sign waivers stating that if you convey alcohol, tobacco, etc., etc. to a woman you may be held liable for killing a “person,” but the original vendor could not be held liable. Maybe in your favorite stores you’d be able to keep some kind of a blanket waiver on file.
    Eventually, the courts would reach some standard of what endangers an unborn person, and what does not, but along the way there’d be a million Norma Raes ( kicking women out of the workplace may be part of the intent,) and a fair number of malicious prosecutions.

  • grumpygirl

    The comments here are interesting, but I don’t think they address the issue of 2 being involved in pregnancy.
    When you have 2 individuals, the rights of one always have to be superior to the rights of the other.
    A common thought with people who have actually thought about the ethics of abortion is that at some point the 2nd individual can be a living being.
    It’s clear that a blastocyst isn’t a baby. It’s a potential human. It may never even develop past that stage. However, it’s also clear that a 38 week fetus is in fact a baby that can survive on it’s own.
    I think we can all agree that there is a huge difference between ending a pregnancy in the first trimester and the third trimester. A third trimester abortion is horrifying and inhuman to me.
    However, since this is all on a scale, it seems reasonable to allow abortion earlier on, and stop doing them late in pregnancy. Finding that spot to stop abortions is tricky.
    I think we have to use as practical an approach as possible. To me, we should stop doing abortions just short of the viability level. It doesn’t make sense to try to save a baby in one part of the hospital and abort a fetus of the same gestational age in another.
    So why should the mom’s life and wishes take priority over the fetus/baby? To me that’s a simple answer. Where abortion is illegal, many women die as a result of illegal abortions. Here’s a link to the Guttmacher Institute, which follows these statistics: http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php
    Potential people shouldn’t take priority over people who are actually living. Especially when the potential person is living in your body. However, if you want to end the pregnancy, you have plenty of time to do it before it becomes a viable baby.

    • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

      I’m thinking you haven’t read the comments completely, because several do address the issue that two beings *may* be involved in pregnancy. They just have come to a different conclusion from you.

      “However, it’s also clear that a 38 week fetus is in fact a baby that can survive on it’s own.”

      No, it’s not clear.

      “I think we can all agree that there is a huge difference between ending a pregnancy in the first trimester and the third trimester.”

      No, we can’t all agree on that.

      “Where abortion is illegal, many women die as a result of illegal abortions.”

      That’s true, and an important reason to legalise abortion, but there are other factors to consider like the idea that women are human beings who should have the most basic of rights to control their own body.

      “Potential people shouldn’t take priority over people who are actually living. Especially when the potential person is living in your body.”

      At least until you, personally, start to feel icky because the potential person looks more like a baby and less like one of Ridley Scott’s Aliens.

      “However, if you want to end the pregnancy, you have plenty of time to do it before it becomes a viable baby.”

      Circumstances can’t possibly change during the course of a pregnancy, then? People who get later abortions were just too lazy to go to the clinic?

      I’m not advocating the termination of 38-week foetuses, and I do agree that drawing the line is difficult, but you’re just as guilty of making enormous assumptions as people who are doggedly anti-choice and would rather see women die than have control of their own fertility. Clearly you don’t want them to die, but you seem pretty reticent to deign to hand this right to women under your particularly controlled circumstances.

      • grumpygirl

        I actually have very intimate knowlege of this topic, as I’m an obstetrician/gynecologist. I also do late abortions.

        There ARE people who have late term abortions, “just because they feel like it”. Actually it’s because they just don’t want to be pregnant. It’s easier to lose a pregnancy to abortion than it is to carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption. That is less common than abortions for genetic reasons, but since abortion is legal in this country, it still happens.

        • Sunny Day

          Citation needed.

          • grumpygirl

            3 out of my 4 patients coming up for late abortions are having them because they have unwanted pregnancies. 1 of them is having a late term abortion (14w 4 d)because the fetus is dead. the 3 patient elective terminations will be @ 22 w, 3 d, one @ 21 w 6d, and 13w 6d.

            • Sunny Day

              You keep getting hung up on using the words “unwanted pregnancies” as if not wanting to be pregnant is a bad thing.

              The fetus is dead and can only be a source of life threatening danger to the mother you’re classifying it as an abortion?

              Further you seemed to be stretching a definition of Late Term Abortion to something uniquely your own.

              “A late-term abortion often refers to an induced abortion procedure that occurs after the 20th week of gestation. However, the exact point when a pregnancy becomes late-term is not clearly defined. Some sources define an abortion after 16 weeks as “late”.[2][3] Three articles published in 1998 in the same issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association could not agree on the definition. Two of the JAMA articles chose the 20th week of gestation to be the point where an abortion procedure would be considered late-term.[4] The third JAMA article chose the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation.[5]

              The point at which an abortion becomes late-term is often related to the “viability” (ability to survive outside the uterus) of the fetus. Sometimes late-term abortions are referred to as post-viability abortions. However, viability varies greatly among pregnancies. Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and no pregnancies are viable before the 21st week. Everything in between is a “grey area”.[5]“

      • grumpygirl

        You have completely missed my discussion. Because you can take the reductio ad absurdum argument in the opposite direction, from embryos are babies to the mother has full rights over what to do with her baby until it’s born, that’s not practical.

        I’m advocating as practical an approach to abortion as possible. I’m an OB/GYN. I do late term abortions. But I think I need to be ethically consistent. If I’m trying to save a 22 week fetus in one part of the hospital, but terminating a 22 wk pregnancy in another part of the hospital, that is inconsistent. If someone has an unwanted pregnancy and they’ve waited beyond 22 wks, I don’t feel moral about doing it. The later the abortion is the more dangerous it is. Dilation and evacuation procedures become quite dangerous after 24 weeks. The only way to terminate the pregnancy then is to induce the birth of the baby. So then what do we do, we induce it and then, what, smother it if it’s born alive??? Do we kill it in utero so that it’s not alive when it’s born??? Because you are advocating that if you think women should have the choice to end a pregnancy at any point during it.

        If you (and others) don’t see the difference between ending a first trimester pregnancy and a third trimester pregnancy and agree that there is a big difference, then you are playing mind games.

        38 week babies survive outside the womb all the time. Definition of a full term baby is 37 weeks. So do 37, 36, 35, 34….down to about 22+ weeks. We don’t have an exact number, but below 22 wks there is no survival.

        And I don’t understand your comment about what “feeling icky” means. I don’t stop doing terminations because it makes me feel “icky”, although late term abortions are unpleasant to do.

        There ARE some people who are too lazy to go in earlier for an abortion. I see them every time I do late term abortions. Sometimes it’s because they are in an abusive relationship where the male partner controls their contraception, refuses to use it, etc. Sometimes it’s because the baby has died or has a genetic/physical anomaly. There are people who have abortions because they don’t want a baby of that particular sex. People have as many, many personal reasons to have an abortion.

        I will always believe women have the need to control their fertility. Women always need access to abortion. But I think after a certain point in pregnancy, you have to start considering the baby. I don’t delude myself into thinking it’s not a baby. I look that in the face every time I do a late term abortion.

        • Theory_of_I

          “38 week babies survive outside the womb all the time.”

          Factually wrong. Babies cannot survive on their own. They are still severely undeveloped and incapable of providing any of the things they require to survive for many years – duh !

          The only thing that significantly changes post-partum is in the sharing of responsibilities for the continued survival of the child.

          • UrsaMinor

            Honestly, I think you’re playing semantics here, unless you’re trying to argue that no baby is viable. But if it is the case that all babies, whether premature or full-term, whether artificially or naturally delivered, are incapable of surviving without adult care, then it ceases to become a distinguishing factor of any sort when you are considering the moral implications of what to do with them.

            The gray areas are large, and they are ethically difficult. I personally don’t have any problem with abortions that occur before the brain and nervous system are wired up to the point where the fetus could conceivably have a conscious perception of pain. Note that this is NOT the same thing as “able to respond physically to stimuli that a fully developed human would find painful”. After that point, though, things get so complicated that we will probably be debating the issue for centuries to come, if not forever.

            • Theory_of_I

              I had hoped to infer that the process is a continuum not so decidedly marked out in weeks that decisions related to termination are limited to a date on the calendar. Grumpygirl seems to feel that late term abortions in unwanted pregnancies are too often performed because…

              “There ARE some people who are too lazy to go in earlier for an abortion. I see them every time I do late term abortions.”

              I thought she and others who restrict their views to gestational trimesters or x weeks as the deciding factor should be reminded that the women who are faced with the decision have far more to be concerned with. As you said “The gray areas are large, and they are ethically difficult.” and I agree, especially when considering the long term implications for the women who must decide what is best for themselves and the unborn for each of their futures. I assume that for some women that can take more than a little time.

    • LadyH42

      Your wish to ban late term abortion may seem well thought out, but it is misguided. No one ever, ever has a late term abortion just because they feel like it. Late term abortions are about 4% of abortions and are only carried out because the fetus is already dead or severely misformed or poses a severe health risk to the mother. Banning late term abortions won’t do much to save any babies and will do a lot to kill or maim women.

      • grumpygirl

        You are wrong. about 1/3-1/2 of the late term abortions I do are done because the pregnancy is unwanted.

        • Sunny Day

          I would expect a physician to be aware of the statistics of their own profession.
          You are either a statistical anomaly or a liar, which is it?

          • Sunny Day

            I’ll add confirmation bias as a third option above.

            • grumpygirl

              Calling me a liar?? I guarantee you I’m neither a liar nor a statistical anomaly. Why in the world would you assume I’m a liar just because you don’t like my statistics??

              I work with 7 other docs who provide late abortions, and we have the same patient profile. We don’t choose what patients are placed on our schedules. They are either booked through the genetics dept or through family planning. There is no confirmation bias.

              The Guttmacher Institute has the best abortion statistics, but none of their statistics have the information on what percent of late term abortions are done for social reasons versus medical reasons.

              There is actually little to no data separating out abortions that are done for elective reasons versus genetic, anomalous or dead fetuses. I can’t find any. My abortion colleagues and I have thought we should put together that data, since you can’t find it anywhere.

              Here’s recent info about who gets late abortions. These are clearly not genetic:

              And here’s Guttmacher’s paper on why women get abortions: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

              Obviously, late abortions are much rarer, and the percentage done for health reasons for either the mother or the fetus are more.

              I work for a large group practice that covers a population of about 250,000 people, so the statistics that I get are actually quite representative of the public at large.

              I (and my patients) are fortunate that we work at a large institution that protects our patients from being harassed.